Timing of NYT article = Nat'l Right to Reciprocity Vote?

This is a discussion on Timing of NYT article = Nat'l Right to Reciprocity Vote? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; You decide
http://nyti.ms/sSt5Dw
And urge your representatives to vote FOR HR822 tomorrow....

Interesting that the NYT says how data is unavailable but they seem to have no trouble finding many cases to support their views.
It sounds like the system needs fine tuning- or maybe a complete overhaul but the article just seems to try to create a panic

-
I do find it troubling that this William James Holisky II (of Minnesota), who has mental issues & was convicted of the felony for shooting up the ex-girlfriend's house while drunk, was able to finagle at least a partial restoration of his rights to firearms.

Do we fight for the rights of the many, allowing the few who, arguably, don't seem to deserve those rights?

"Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right." -- U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, Re: U.S. vs Emerson (1999)

Do we fight for the rights of the many, allowing the few who, arguably, don't seem to deserve those rights?

There is nothing in the constitution regarding who may keep and bear arms, except that the constitution apllies to citizens. I don't like that violent felons can have any of their citizenship rights restored.

But, they can, and so they should be allowed to keep and bear arms. But then, so can I... And, should one of them use his reacquired firearms rights against me... then he ain't gonna be the only one exercising his rights.

What will stop any felon from getting a firearm upon release if they really want one? Whether they get their rights restored and legally possess a gun, or they just buy one in the back alley, the person with criminal intent will do what they want to do.

The examples given in the article are the very marginal examples. Meant to create more Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

The Times examined hundreds of restoration cases in several states".....
"Since 1995, more than 3,300 felons and people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors have regained their gun rights in the state — 430 in 2010 alone.....Since 1995, more than 3,300 felons and people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors have regained their gun rights in the state — 430 in 2010 alone — according to the analysis of data provided by the state police and the court system. Of that number, more than 400 — about 13 percent — have subsequently committed new crimes, the analysis found. More than 200 committed felonies, including murder, assault in the first and second degree, child rape and drive-by shooting. ...........

— according to the analysis of data provided by the state police and the court system

I've decided about the article, seems well researched; I don't believe this is the first time I've heard of this. also it is a logical outcome of states deciding reinstatement of permits, for there are scores of States with varying degrees of foresight and the even-handedness and intelligence inherent in Heller regarding gun-policy. I do not want the man sitting next to me with major felonies and/or major evidence of serious mental illness to have a legal gun. It is not safe for me, family or others. Politics of gun-issues? : of interest to me only in so far as it corresponds to reality.

Bloomberg, a supposed Republican, gave the anti-gun Dem candidate for Mayor of Indianapolis (who thankfully lost) $25,000 because she said she would join his anti-gun Mayors against illegal guns group if she won. Thankfully, one of the only things I like about Indiana is these Hoosiers like their guns. They saw through her BS and know Bloomberg is a BS artist, RINO and anti-gun. She got her butt handed to her.